Category talk:Suburb Group Listings

Formatting cleanup

I've been making an effort recently to try and make the formatting for these templates more consistent. So far, that's just involved using wiki code to resize a few logos that were too large, removing bold and <big>; tags here and there, alphabetizing the entries, and adding generic logos for groups that lacked them.

I'd like to improve them quite a bit more, but before I do that, I'd like to solicit some advice about three key areas: guidelines, logos/images, and code. For the sake of making things easier to absorb, I'll break them down in their own sections. —Aichon— 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines

The current guidelines for dealing with the suburb groups are here. It's been a few years since they were edited, so I thought it might be time to revisit them and make sure that they still meet our needs well.

To start off the discussion, I'm not a fan of #2. I think it looks ugly on the suburb pages to have things like "Abandoned, The". I think we should still alphabetize, but that can be done without moving articles of speech to the end of the group name (e.g. they'd still be alphabetized as an "A," but would show up as "The Abandoned"). And the logo requirements should have a size limitation as well.

I also think it would be valuable to require a link to a group's wiki page, and I'd like to put together a guideline for how often groups get cleaned out of the listing. I've seen a few groups that simply have text there with no link, which I think serves little purpose. As for cleaning groups out, I'd be happy to take the lead on a fresh suburb group clean up and make it a semi-annual thing, at least for awhile. I also think it might be nice to have them confirm individual suburbs, since many groups forget to remove themselves from listings after they move on. Thoughts? —Aichon— 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Images and logos

Many of the images that are used as logos suffer from one of two problems: they're significantly larger than they need to be and are simply resized using wiki code, or they're taller than they should be, so they end up being too tall when their width is resized to 25px (i.e. their logos appear bigger than everyone else's).

Regarding the first problem, while most images that are 25x25 are under 5KB, many of the larger ones that are resized are 50+kB. The problem is that they put unnecessary load on the server and slow page load times by serving up larger images than are needed. Obviously, I don't have stats on how much of an improvement it would make (if any) if we shrunk these images, but the intuition is clear. I've identified a few possible ways of handling it, but I wanted feedback:

• Simply remove the logos and replace them with the generic question marks
• Notify the groups and let them change them
• Resize the images using an editor, upload them under different names, and put them in the templates instead

Also, where would the cut-off be for what is considered "too large"? Anything over 25x25? Anything over 10KB? Some combination thereof? And if we went with the second option, what do we do if the groups don't do anything?

Regarding the second problem I mentioned earlier, what is the appropriate way to deal with tall images? Besides those last three ideas, we could also resize it in wiki code by simply shrinking the width until the height was scaled down to 25px as well (e.g. a 50px tall image that’s 30px wide would get scaled to 15px wide so that it'd be 25px tall). Thoughts on which approach is the best? Alternatives? Not worth it at all? Assuming we go forward, I'd be happy to take the lead on it and deal with whatever comes up. —Aichon— 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Code

As an example of a few things I see that could use work, here’s Brook Hills' template:

<noinclude>
[[Category:Suburb Group Listings]]
</noinclude><small>[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:BrookeHillsgroups&action=edit edit group listing]</small>
{{SuburbGroups|
survivor_groups =<p></p>
*[[Image:icon.jpg|25px]] [[All Out Assault]]
*[[Image:Detulux.JPG|25px]] [[Detulux Inc]]
*<big>'''[[Department of Emergency Management|DEM]]'''</big>
**[[Image:MFD GroupIcon.jpg]] [[Malton Fire Department]]
**[[Image:MPDGroupIcon.jpg]] [[Malton Police Department]]
**[[Image:MFUGroupIcon.JPG]] [[Malton Forensics Unit]]
*[[Image:MaltonZookeepers.png]] [[The Malton Zookeepers|Malton Zookeepers, The]]


|

zombie_groups=<p></p>
*[[Image:cotr.jpg|25px]] [[Church of the Resurrection]]
*[[Image:Pals2resevil13.jpg‎|25px]] [[Grandon PD Noise Abatement Society]]
}}

As I see it, the <p></p> code seems unnecessary. There's also the issue of the hostile_groups variable not being in this example. In many suburbs, zombie_groups doesn't show up either (though it does here). For a newbie, it would likely be a bit daunting to figure out how to add in their own group, since they'd look at this code and see no place to add a hostile group.

I was thinking that it might be beneficial to alter the code in the following ways:

• Place the <p></p> tags in Template:SuburbGroups instead, that way they don't have to be included here.
• Use all three variables here, and modify Template:SuburbGroups so that it inserts the default text (e.g. "Only feral zombies...") when the variable is empty, rather than when it is missing.
• Generally clean it up and standardize it (e.g. move the "|" (pipe symbols) to a consistent location relative to the variables, remove extraneous/inconsistent line breaks, etc.

The first is rather trivial, I believe, and simply cuts down on the code in each suburb's template while making things easier to understand for newbies who want to add their group. The second could be implemented using Template:if, I believe, and should also be relatively simple. The third is a simple matter, and I'll probably just go ahead with it at some point.

Anyway, I was looking for feedback on the first two. Am I missing something about the <p></p> tags that keeps them from being used in Template:SuburbGroups? And is using the Template:if a good idea at all for the second point? —Aichon— 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Replies

Guidelines - Agree on the alphabetisation thing. As far as group removal goes, I think the GSGM has it covered mostly (talking of which, we should probably set another one of those going soonish). If your group doesn't even have a link then they don't stay on listings for long.

Images - The wiki automatically generates thumbnails for resized images, so filesize is a non-issue for the 25px icons at least. Not sure what to do about tall icons, maybe just see if it can be resolved for those few groups who use it. I'm fine with leaving them tall for now.

Code - Can be improved to remove the workarounds, and make historic(al) groups part of this list, and page moves would be helpful too. An if template would probably work and I think worthwhile. Though all this is some effort to do without breaking suburb pages for a good while.

--  RoosterDragon  23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up old templates is always good. Don't worry about the images though- they aren't a bother. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with your thoughts on the Guidelines. From Rooster's and DDR's responses it doesn't sound like Images/Icon are as much of an issue. You're better with coding than I am, so I trust you to make it work without looking any worse than I does already. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your revised idea for #2. I don't like seeing "Abandoned, The" either.

I would support shrinking tall images with the use of wiki code and math, so that it is no taller than 25px. If you resize a tall image then a brief note on the group's talk page would be in-order, explaining that 25px is the height/width limit and if they wish they can upload another image that will look better under those restrictions. As far as image size (kb), I'm not sure what the limit should be as I don't have any expertise on the issue.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

YES. I really have something against putting "the" after the group name. It never really made much sense to me. I have no idea how to solve any of the problems, because my wiki fu has deserted me. Sad face. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding images, Iscariot suggested on IRC that we could deal with tall logos via the next GSGM by simply adding an extra stipulation saying that if their images were taller than 25px that they would be replaced by the generic question mark logo instead, which seems like a reasonable way to deal with the problem. I'm also okay with doing the math to shrink them down. But yes, as Rooster pointed out, filesize is a non-issue, which I hadn't realized before.

As for the code, Rooster had apparently already started working on some revised code, and he has grander ideas in mind for it, so I think I'll hold off on any template changes for now. I might go through and clean up the code a bit so that it's easier for people to work with, but otherwise I'll be leaving it alone for now. And since it seems like there's support for the idea, I'll go ahead and change the alphabetizing so that articles of speech don't come at the end of the group name any longer. —Aichon— 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I kinda missed the boat here, but I'd also be up for another GSGM if it would help this endeavour. It's been 10 months or so since the last one, it wouldn't hurt to cull the chaff again. 02:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't miss the boat, since I was just feeling people out, rather than trying to build momentum towards something. And yeah, I think Rooster expressed interest in another GSGM, and I'd certainly be up for helping with a new one, since I practically proposed one in this write-up. —Aichon— 02:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say put up a wiki news post on the 20th asking for volunteers for the next GSM and note in the news post that images will also come under scrutiny. The news post will stay active until 3rd Jan, giving full coverage of the festive season and allowing people to take note. Spend January setting up and discussing what we'll do and go on the 1st Feb. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really take a month to plan it out? Seems like we could hack together whatever tables and other tools we might need for organizing ourselves over a weekend or a night and could be ready to go by mid-January. —Aichon— 04:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's hungover for the entirety of January, it's fair notice and gives a nice memorable date to the beginning. As the beginning of the month there'll be new admin pages and tasks to be done so this can be neatly slotted in with those. January also allows any drama from a potential Christmas/New Year in-game event to resolve before we start booting groups off pages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus, that makes it in-and-around an even year between them. 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)